Editor-in-chief of Der Spiegel "belittled and
denied" the "gassings" of Auschwitz without being prosecuted!

Fritjof Meyer withdraws from public debate

By Robert Faurisson, 6
September 2004

In May of 2002 Fritjof Meyer,
editor-in-chief of the magazine Der Spiegel, published in the
monthly Osteuropa, whose editorial commission is headed by Rita
Süssmuth, former president of the Bundestag, an article (p. 631-641)
entitled "Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue
Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde" ("The
number of victims of Auschwitz. New figures through the
discovery of new archives"). Rejecting the figure of 4,000,000 victims
(the official one until 1990) and that of 1,500,000 (no less official,
but steadily revised since 1995), he boldly proposed the "presumed"
figure of 510,000 dead, of whom "probably" 356,000 killed by
gassing.

He stated that this "genocide"
had "most likely" been perpetrated "predominantly"(überwiegend)
outside the camp, in the "White Farm" or "Bunker I" and the "Red Farm"
or "Bunker II".For the guardians of the holocaustic faith
this latter assertion contravened the dogma holding that the gassings
had been carried out, very predominantly, in the four great
crematories of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

From July 2002 revisionist
publications announced this spectacular revision coming from an author
who in his study had condemned what is called Nazi barbarism. In
November The Journal of Historical Review presented an account
by Mark Weber on pages 24-28 of its issue dated May-August of that
year. In February 2003 the first issue of Germar Rudolf's The
Revisionist carried an essay on the subject by Carlo Mattogno (p.
30-37). In Germany itself, the review Nation und Europa launched and
maintained a long revisionist campaign on the theme of F. Meyer's
"revisionism". Wieland Körner dealt with the matter in a brief work
entitled Die neue Sicht von Auschwitz - The New View of
Auschwitz, January 2004, Durchblick-Bücher, PF 33 04 04, D 28334
Bremen.

Some orthodox authors indeed
found it necessary to break the silence at their end. In Die Welt
of 28 August 2002 Sven Felix Kellerhof opened fire by bemoaning the
fact that a "key witness of the liberal left" had lost his way and
gone to the aid of the "Holocaust deniers". There followed a
controversy, with F. Meyer protesting his good intentions and
"antifascist" convictions. In turn Franciszek Piper, the Polish
communist and former curator of the Auschwitz Museum, entered the
fray. F. Meyer made a rejoinder. The affair began to grow nasty.
Certain revisionists cleverly forced the German judicial authorities
to explain their failure to prosecute F. Meyer. Their answer: the
author had doubtless come forth with reduced figures but he had done
so without minimising the gravity of the crime (for the full text
of the Lüneberg public prosecutor's reply, see Recht und Wahrheit,
n° 11 & 12, p. 16-17, published in Tenerife).

Eventually, with the business
nonetheless taking a more and more irksome turn for him, the
editor-in-chief of Der Spiegel preferred to throw in the towel.
In a short piece dated 12 February he stated that, in view of the
profit that the revisionists had garnered from his article and their
intention in future to persist in "instrumentalising" his arguments,
he preferred to withdraw from the public debate. In closing, he
called for a mobilisation against fascists wherever they might be. He
confided his decision to the "Information Service against Rightwing
Extremism" - Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus - directed by
Albrecht Kolthoff who, for his part, in a text of 23 February, said
that, although he understood F. Meyer's decision, he lamented it.

PARIS, Oct. 15
(JTA) — Bruno Gollnisch has spent yearspreparing himself to take up the mantle of French
far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Now he appears to have outdone even his master in
provocative remarks about Jews and the Holocaust.

Gollnisch, Le Pen’s likely successor as head of the
National Front party, said Monday that the existence of Nazi gas
chambers was a matter of legitimate debate for historians.

“There isn’t a serious historian around who totally
sticks by the conclusions of the Nuremberg Trials,” Gollnisch told a
press conference in Lyon on Monday. “I’m not questioning the existence
of concentration camps, but on the number of deaths, historians can
discuss it. As to whether gas chambers existed, that’s up to the
historians to determine.”

The remarks could see Gollnisch removed from his
post as a professor at the University of Lyon III, while the European
Parliament could sanction Gollnisch, who is also a member of the
legislative body.

Such action would mirror disciplinary action taken
by the European Parliament in 1997 which lifted Le Pen’s parliamentary
immunity after the National Front leader repeated comments describing
the Holocaust as a “detail” of World War II.

Gollnisch’s remarks followed the publication of a
last week government report that accused the University of Lyon III of
systematically tolerating academics who advocated Holocaust denial.

Gollnisch teaches Japanese at the university and is
one of a number of far-right academics associated with the institution
since it was created in 1973.

The report was commissioned by former Education
Minister Jack Lang in 2002 and chaired by the historian Henry Rousso.
While the report’s conclusions noted that the university “was not a
fascist campus,” it went on to say the school had, during the course
of its existence, provided “shelter for a far-right kernel” of
academics among its staff.

Lyon III has often been at the center of
controversy over the legitimacy of academic debate regarding the
Holocaust.

In a notable example in 1985, Jean-Paul Allard, a
professor at the university, approved a student thesis that denied
killings were carried out in concentration camps during World War II.

And in 1990, the university awarded a student a
bachelor’s degree with an honors citation after the student submitted
a thesis shining a favorable light on the life of Georges Montandon.
An academic who studied racial theory in the 1930s, Montadon was
responsible for providing certificates of “Aryanness” during the Nazi
occupation of France.

For his part, Gollnisch this week also chose to
attack Rousso’s impartiality.

Rousso was “a Jewish personality, a respected
historian, but his neutrality cannot be assured,” Gollnisch said.

Such remarks were slammed by Jewish and anti-racist
groups with the CRIF umbrella organization of French Jews, which
called them a “double provocation.”

Gollnisch had “called into doubt the existence of
the gas chambers and questioned the legitimacy of an academic by the
sole fact of his Jewish origins,” CRIF said in a statement.

Serge Cwajgenbaum, secretary-general of the
European Jewish Congress, told JTA that Gollnisch’s comments showed
that “this man, who calls himself a scholar, is totally ignorant of
history.”

“There weren’t just concentration camps, there were
extermination camps; every reputable historian accepts that as a
fact,” he said, adding that Gollnisch’s comments were “not academic,
but politically and ideologically based.”

The Paris-based International League Against Racism
and Anti-Semitism, known by its French acronym, LICRA, called on the
European Parliament to take action against Gollnisch.

In a letter to Parliament President Josep Borrell
on Wednesday, LICRA’s president, Patrick Gaubert, asked the
legislature to enforce sanctions against Gollnisch “for his
revisionist comments which place in doubt the historical veracity of
the existence of the gas chambers.”

The letter drew a quick response from Borrell, who
condemned Gollnisch’s remarks in a statement to the European
Parliament session on Thursday.

Directly addressing Gollnisch, Borrell said he was
“ashamed” to have heard a European legislator making “scandalous
claims” regarding the existence of gas chambers.

“I hope you will be held accountable for your
slanders by the courts,” Borrell added.

Gollnisch’s remarks are not the first time he has
strayed into controversial territory.

In 1991, he called for “the respect of freedom of
expression for educators who exercise a critical perspective towards
the history of the Second World War.”

And in 1996, Gollnisch publicly praised French
soldiers who fought alongside the Nazis on the Eastern Front during
World War II.

The remarks are likely to heat up the increasingly
vicious battle within the National Front regarding who will succeed Le
Pen when he decides to retire.

While Le Pen has denied any intention to step down,
the party is currently split between its traditionalist wing, led by
Gollnisch, and the so-called modernizers gathered around Le Pen’s
daughter, Marine.

Those close to Marine Le Pen immediately drew on
Gollnisch’s comments to place in doubt his fitness as a potential
future party leader.

Eric Iorio, who is responsible for election
strategy for the party, said that “if Gollnisch wants to appear as a
historical reprobate, he should do it in a personal capacity, not as a
personality and a future president of the National Front.”

Another senior party figure suggested that
Gollnisch “only needs now to put on a hood and dress like the Ku Klux
Klan.”

In the meantime, Lyon III has distanced itself from
Gollnisch’s remarks and called on Education Minister Francois Fillon
to initiate disciplinary measures against Gollnisch.

“These remarks are as much unacceptable in
themselves as they are for the serious attack they bring upon the
honor and credit of the university,” Lyon III’s president, Guy Lavorel,
said in a statement Wednesday.

The inability to find backing even within his own
milieu seemed to have at least brought the point home to Gollnisch.

“I don’t know if I’m going to be chased out of my
chair in Japanese or even put in prison for this phrase, but I assume
responsibility for it,” he said.

He did not, however, apologize.

Attacking what he described as the “thought police”
and the “considerable interests who want to prevent this debate,”
Gollnisch said it was “in the interests of the State of Israel to have
endless discussions about reparations.”

Flying aboard his Air Force One to the battleground
state of Florida, home to the third-largest Jewish population in the
world, US President George W. Bush on Saturday, October 16, signed
into law a controversial bill on combating the so-called global
anti-Semitism.

"Today, I signed the Global Anti-Semitism Review
Act of 2004. This law commits the government to keep a record of
anti-Semitic acts throughout the world, and also a record of responses
to those acts," Bush told thousands of cheering supporters packed
into a sports arena.

With polls showing the race deadlocked in Florida,
Bush’s aides said they hoped his staunch support for Israel and
aggressive outreach would lead Jewish voters who usually vote for
Democrats to cast ballots for him, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Florida, which boasts the third-largest Jewish
population after Israel and New York, is the richest haul among the
battleground states expected to decide the November 2 presidential
election, with 27 electoral college votes out of the 270 needed to
win.

The law, which seems to be part of that effort,
commits the US State Department to documenting acts of physical
violence against Jews, their property, cemeteries and places of
worship abroad, as well as local governments' responses to them and
take note of instances of anti-Jewish propaganda and governments'
readiness to promote unbiased school curricula.

"This nation will keep watch; we will make sure
that the ancient impulse of anti-Semitism never finds a home in the
modern world," Bush said.

"Extending freedom also means disrupting the evil
of anti-Semitism."

The bill was introduced by California Democratic
Representative Tom Lantos, in response to alleged acts of
anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East.

But the US State Department opposed the measure,
saying the department already compiles such information in its annual
report on human rights and religious freedom.

This position irked Jewish groups -- which wield
significant political power especially during a presidential election
year -- and in September, more than 100 prominent Americans signed a
letter to US Secretary of State Colin Powell saying that stance was
"wrong."

"The fight against anti-Semitism deserves specific,
focused attention," said the letter which was signed by former
Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp and ex-UN ambassador
Jeane Kirkpatrick among others.

What Is Anti-Semitism?

A leading American civil rights organization
kept pressure on the publishers of an edition of a Merriam
Webster’s dictionary for linking anti-Semitism to Zionism and Israel.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, anti-Semitism
is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or
racial group.

It was coined in 1879 by German agitator Wilhelm
Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns underway in central Europe
at that time.

However, Richard Levy, a professor of History in
Chicago, had told IslamOnline.net the term
is often misused when Jews and others "refuse to see any
difference between criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism".

"Anti-Semitic charges are sometimes employed to
stifle objections to anything the Israelis want to do or have done".

Analysts tend to agree that Israel has gained much
from the intensively-used anti-Semitic cliché.

Earlier in April, Israel
accused the BBC of anti-Semitism after it published a report on
the situation in Palestinian territories occupied by the Israeli army.

A French play and a Norwegian painting became the
victims of the heavily-used charges resulting in the cancellation
of the play and removing the Norwegian painting from the gallery.

The learning process never stops. Michael
Santomauro forwarded everyone his letters of support. I wasn't
surprised. I have known for a long time that there is a sub-group out
there that attacks the Jews, criticizes Israel, but believes in the
holocaust and the demonization of Germany's Reichs Chancellor Adolf
Hitler.

It is strange. That’s why I call it the "Fifth
Element" or "Playing both Sides." I cannot understand, how one can
hate the Jews, but subscribe to the holocaust? If you think that the
holocaust story comes actually from the same people they so ardently
criticize.

What's the explanation? I think they are simply
hoodlums who play both sides.

The list of supporters of Michael Santomauro's
comparison of Adolf Hitler to Ariel Sharon carries a few popular
names. Popular in the sense of their own sub-cultures. They all
believe that it doesn't matter what good Adolf Hitler did. The "evil"
he brought outweighs it all.

Another very strange thing is that most of the
"Fifth Element" people support the IHR. In return, Mark Weber has
endorsed Michael Santomauro's policies of playing both sides. In fact,
when asked by revisionist giant Prof. Robert Faurisson whether or not
Weber believes in the gas chambers, he could not give a direct answer.

The same with Michael Santomauro when he was asked
if he believes in the holocaust. He also avoided a direct answer and
said that they are playing with the numbers.

Israel Shamir is one of the persons who wrote a
compassionate letter of support to Michael Santomauro. Not that I
care, because he is a Jew and I despise them all, whether they are
good or bad. In his letter, Mr. Shamir mentioned me. He called me a
"Hollywood Nazi" who celebrates Hitler's birthday with Sauerkraut and
Bratwurst.

I have not had much contact with Mr. Shamir. He
used to inundate my box with his column and I told him to unsubscribe.
Simply put, he is a con man who charges $3,000 for a speaking
engagement in addition to $200 a day for him and his wife. He was
solicited for the Sacramento Conference and I told him to shove it
where the sun don't shine.

Barry Chamish, also an Israeli, highly critical of
his own country, however, claims to have lost relatives in the
holocaust.

I was not surprised to find Attorney Edgar Steele
amongst the supporters of Michael Santomauro. Many times Steele also
made derogatory remarks about Adolf Hitler. Again, strange, if you
consider the circle in which he is looking for clients.

Nelson Waller, another one who wrote a supportive
letter and got quite belligerent about the "evil Nazis" and Hitler. I
have taken him off my mailing list a while back.

Include in that pack also Bradley Smith and Michael
Hoffman, who both try to please the Jews by maligning the German
people.

In reality, my friends, it is just double talk.
Michael Santomauro calls himself an amateur revisionist. Strange comes
to mind again when you think that he just couldn't give a direct
answer about the holocaust to the New York Times.

So, one has to wonder what they are up to. Are they
just mentally retarded or clever con men? These are people who have no
character and no guts. Trust me when I tell you that they are after
your money. They criticize Israel and the Jews, and that's the hook
with which they get you. Once you are on the hook, it is too late.

At the same time, they demonize Hitler and believe
in the holocaust. So, they are talking both sides. Extracting money
from everyone is the common denominator.

What was Santomauro thinking when his New York City
roommate service went belly-up and he started to become an "amateur
revisionist? In the Capitol of the Jews? Did he really think that he
is going to be left alone? I am not sure why this was a big deal in
the first place. We all have gone through it.

The bottom line: If you criticize Israel and the
Jews, but support the holocaust lie and demonize Adolf Hitler, you are
not any better than those you criticize. Israel was built on the
holocaust lie. Without it, its economy would collapse. In my book,
criticizing Israel does not open the door for you to come in. As we
have seen with the Michael Santomauro issue, the "Fifth Element"
people are amateur crooks at best and traitors at worst. I am a
straightforward guy and I despise those who play both sides in order
to gain favorites with one or the other. Here it is again: The
holocaust is a lie. Adolf Hitler was a great man and did great things
for the German people. Anyone who believes differently is an enemy,
and we should not deal with them or support them in any way.

Unless you can bring me proof about the negative
things you say about the Third Reich, stay out of my mailbox.

A rumble is brewing on the Upper West Side between
members of the militant Jewish Defense Organization and a self
described Holocaust "revisionist." For 20 years, Michael Santamauro
has lived in a rent-controlled apartment on W. 72nd St. He
runs a small Internet business,
www.roommatefinders.com,
while writing and disseminating articles that deny the Holocaust.
Recently, he began organizing Holocaust denial lectures in the
neighborhood - one of them featuring David Irving, an infamous English
Holocaust denier. "There is nothing kosher about a neo-Nazi
headquarters on the Upper West Side," Jeffrey Silver, an organizer
with the Jewish Defense Organization, told amNewYork. Silver said he
learned of Santamauro's links with Holocaust deniers last week and
embarked on a campaign to get him evicted. Since Santamauro runs
abusiness out of his home, Silver said, he violates the lease.

Although Santamauro's Web site posts virulently
anti-Semitic messages on the discussion board, he denied being a
neo-Nazi or hating Jews. "Every time I dabble into anti-Zionist
politics, they have a death threat on me," Santamauro told amNewYork,
referring to Jewish groups. He espoused the writings of the
California-based Institute for Historical Review a group the
Anti-Defamation League called "the foremost Holocaust denial
organization in the United States."

When asked if he believed that six million Jews
were killed in concentration camps, Santamauro said, "I think people
play with numbers. Whatever you can get away with."

Silver compared Santamauro to Thomas Zibelli, the
Bronx man accused of recruiting neighborhood kids with booze and porn
to take part in neo-Nazi activities. "We want them all out," he said.

The Jewish Defense Organization has already
plastered the neighborhood with fliers calling Santamauro a "Nazi pig"
and demanding his eviction.

The group will stage a protest outside the building
in two weeks. A spokesman for West Pierre Associates, the owner of
Santamauro's building, was not available for comment yesterday. But
the doorman said Santamauro has "always been a gentlemen."

One concerned neighbor, Andy Moskowitz, said he
doesn't want Nazis in the neighborhood, but added, "If a guy invited
people to his apartment to discuss Holocaust denial, it seems to be
okay"

RePortersNoteBook Memo: The Jewish Defense
Organization's Mentality andIntelligence I received this on Oct.13,
2004 from the JDO.org.

Start: The JDO is not interesting in collecting an
award and we are not interested in debating you with any of your
bullshit. We are interested in only one thing...f***ing your mother.
We hear she is a hot number. The only problem is the last time someone
stuck a dick in her ear she went nuts, had to go the Institute for
Hysterical Review. See you at the demonstration, and more....
judeaM@jdo.org (Jewish Defense
Organization)

N.B.: The protest failed – only about 20
protesters turned up, and this in the heart of Jew York.

National Post; Date: Oct 19, 2004, AFP, with files from The
Daily Telegraph

PARIS
• Alain Menargues, head of news at the state-owned Radio France
International, resigned from his post yesterday after he was accused of
anti-Israeli bias. Promoting his new book Sharon’s Wall on the
security barrier being built to separate Israel from Palestinian centres
of population, Mr. Menargues more than once described Israel as racist,
earning condemnation from the government as well as journalists at the
French national broadcaster and Jewish groups. Speaking on LCI
television on Sept. 30, he said, “You say Israel is a democratic state.
Let me rapidly add that it is also a racist state … The law of return
only concerns Jews. What is the basis of Zionism? It is to make a state
for the Jews.” On another occasion he said, “What was the first ghetto
in the world? It was in Venice. Who made it? The Jews themselves, in
order to separate themselves from the rest. Afterward Europe put them in
ghettos.” The French Foreign Ministry said that Mr. Menargues’
description of Israel as racist was “unacceptable” and journalists’
unions at RFI called on management to “assume its responsibilities.”
Gilles William Goldnadel, vicepresident of the France-Israel
association, said the remarks were made “in the context of a deeprooted
anti-Jewishness and the fact they were made by a director of RFI, the
voice of France abroad, shows there is a sense of total impunity.” Mr.
Menargues has rejected the charges against him, saying, “Israel is a
country like any other and like the others it must be criticized. There
is no exception in my vision of the world, no country is above
international laws.” He told The Daily Telegraph, “This is a sad
day for the freedom of expression. To say I am anti-Semitic when my wife
is Jewish is ridiculous. I have had 150 e-mails giving me support,
including some from Jews, and five insulting or opposing me.” The
57-year-old journalist is a Middle East specialist who has spent many
years in the region. He was named to his current post, which bears the
rank of deputy director-general, in July. Israel and Jewish groups have
long accused France of pursuing policies that are biased in favour of
the Arab world.

German
Judicial Persecution against Citizens of German Reich/Revisionist

You wrote: "The notion that to criticize Hitler is
a secret hated for the Germans is ludicrous." Maybe not...

Since long before the war, Hitler was vilified -
virtually demonized – by the Jewish controlled establishment.

Thanks to their propagandizing, there are now
basically two kinds of Germans; the new German who embraces
multiculturalism - which ineluctably leads to amalgamation and
extinction - and the loyal German who desires the preservation and
improvement of his race and culture. The latter type is invariably
tarred with the Hitler brush and made an object of scorn and contempt
and persecution. The case of Ernst Zündel is the classic example.

Every modern-day attack against Hitler is,
perforce, an attack on those Germans who resist amalgamation and
extinction, and by extension, against all whites who have a similar
inclination regarding their own race and culture.

The question certainly has nothing to do with
whether Hitler was evil or not. If he was, he certainly was not more
evil than Franklin D. Roosevelt who desperately wanted and instigated
the cruelest and most disastrous war in history. Hitler wanted peace
and worked toward that end. He offered reasonable terms of compromise
to the Poles, who defiantly spurned them at the instigation of the
warmongers who controlled Britain and the U.S. There is good reason
to believe that he deliberately permitted the evacuation of the
British Forces at Dunkerque in hope of restoring peace and that he was
behind the flight to Scotland by Rudolf Hess for that same purpose.

By way of contrast, when Churchill was preparing to
leave England for the Quebec meeting in the late summer of 1943, a
reporter asked Mr. Churchill, "Will you offer peace terms to
Germany?" Churchill replied, "Heavens no! They would accept
immediately." Time, August 30, 1943, in: Revisionist
Viewpoints, James J. Martin, 1971, pp. 74, 75 – res ipsa loquitur.
The thing speaks for itself.

As to the "Holocaust," all informed persons
understand that to be a vicious propaganda hoax. Take away falsely
alleged war blame and the bogus "Holocaust," and what remains to
justify labeling Hitler as evil personified? ...nothing worth
mentioning! What can you lay at his doorstep to surpass Hamburg and
Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? ...or the crimes against war
prisoners recounted in James Bacque's Other Losses? ...or the
crimes committed against German civilians in the postwar expulsions
from their homes? ...or the infamous "War Crimes Trials" which were,
themselves, war crimes? Certainly no sane person would argue that
Hitler was more evil than Stalin.

Jews are masters in the arts of psychology and
persuasion (and defamation) - and in the skillful manipulative use of
words to conform people to their goals. And that is why Hitler's name
and all that pertains to it has acquired such negative connotation in
the "minds" of the masses. It is meant to intimidate and discourage
those who resist their program for a "new world order."

Whether or not Hitler or Nazism was or is evil is
completely irrelevant to the question.

Hence, to use Hitler's name - or Nazism - as a
synonym for consummate evil, is to play into the hands of those who
would use one to further their own nefarious ends. To imagine
otherwise is simply to indulge in self deception. The difficulties
that you are presently experiencing certainly should give you an idea
of the character of the people you are dealing with here.

Regards, Jack Martin

FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF THE HOLOCAUST MUST BE
PRESERVED

Timothy Ryback, The Wall Street Journal,
July 7, 2004

Last month, Jarek Mensfelt, spokesman for the
Auschwitz memorial site, announced plans to preserve the ruins of the
gas chambers and crematoria in the notorious death camp at Birkenau
near the Polish town of Oswiecim. “This is an attempt to keep it as it
is now – in ruins – but not let the ruins go,” he said. “It was meant
to be here forever as a warning.”

In the coming weeks, as the Auschwitz
preservationists begin their work, they should be guided by the
knowledge that these heaps of dynamited concrete and twisted steel are
not only historic artifacts but among the few remnants of untainted,
forensic evidence of the Holocaust.

Of course, the historical and circumstantial
evidence of a premeditated Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish
population of Europe is overwhelming. There are the watch-tower-girded
enclosures of Nazi concentration camps and the extensive testimonials
of Holocaust survivors, as well as the court protocols of Nazi war
criminals, but there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal
intent. The Nazis were scrupulous when it came to obscuring the “Final
Solution” in bureaucratic euphemism and also dismantling or
obliterating their machinery of death. The dearth of hard evidence has
fueled a growth industry in Holocaust-denial.

The revisionists’ plaint is simple: They demand a
proverbial “smoking gun” to prove that the Nazis deliberately and
systematically designed an industrial system of extermination. They do
not deny that millions of European Jews died from malnutrition,
exhaustion and disease. They do not even deny that Zyklon B gas was
employed at Auschwitz, but they claim it was used for delousing rather
than homicidal purposes. One French critic has denounced them as “assassins
de la memoire” – murderers of memory.

Auschwitz has been a particular target of Holocaust
deniers – in particular the gas chamber in Auschwitz I, the original
base camp a mile east of Birkenau. It was here that some of the first
experiments with poison gas were undertaken in a converted air-raid
shelter refitted with air-tight doors and special ducts for homicidal
purposes. Dynamited by the Nazis in the autumn of 1944, the gas
chamber was reconstructed after the war. As one revisionist notes:
“The official view holds that the Soviets and Poles created a ‘gas
chamber’ in an air-raid shelter that had been an air-raid shelter.”

While most serious historians refuse to dignify
such statements with a response, Polish administrators have taken the
bait. In response to revisionist charges, they tested the gas chamber
walls for residual traces of cyanide gas but found none. Unlike the
delousing chambers, whose walls still show cyanide “staining,” the gas
chambers betrayed no residual traces of Zyklon B. The homicidal
process was so murderously brief that the cyanide never penetrated the
interior surface. Similarly, it was found that repeated postwar
“cleaning” had leached the last traces of cyanide from the heaps of
human hair, one of the most damning pieces of Holocaust evidence.

Four years ago, this evidence was used by the
revisionist David Irving in his libel suit against Emory University
historian Deborah Lipstadt. Though the judge handed down an
unequivocal verdict against Mr Irving, the Holocaust deniers remain
undeterred. “While the judgment in the Irving-Lipstadt trial is
certainly a heavy blow for Irving personally,” a leading revisionist
publication observed, “it is only a temporary setback for the
ultimately unstoppable march of revisionist scholarship.”

In the battle against Holocaust deniers,

Birkenau’s extermination facilities remain
important forensic evidence. Today, the ruined structures lei at the
far end of the camp – beyond the railway line and the infamous “ramp”
where Josef Mengele once stood to make his “selections” – tumbled and
broken plates of concrete that rise from the earth like arctic ice
shoals, the remnants of a once horrifically efficient piece of
machinery.

Between 1942, when they were first put into
operation, and 1944, when they were dynamited, more than a million
human beings – mostly Jewish – were fed into these extermination
plants, forced into subterranean chambers and gassed, their corpses
removed and transported by mechanical conveyance to the crematoria
ovens. The chimneys belched smoke into the air. The remnant ash was
scattered in the surrounding fields, or dumped in a nearby pond whose
muddy bottom, even today, is of a sticky viscosity laced with
matchstick-size splinters of human bone.

The horrors of this machinery have been preserved
in the classic memoirs of survivor-authors like Elie Wiesel and Primo
Levi, in the myriad recorded testimonies of Holocaust survivors, and
in the trial protocols of Nazi perpetrators.

But as with any account filtered through human
memory, this “evidence” is subject to challenge and rebuttal. There is
no arguing with presence of the Birkenau gas chambers. Here the proof
of the Holocaust is written in concrete and steel.

This summer, as the preservationists clear the
weeds and sort through the rubble, they should work in the knowledge
that they are not just preserving a “warning” for the future but also
excavating the hard evidence of evil.

Mr Ryback is the author of The Last Survivor:
Legacy of Dachau.

HOLOCAUST! THE
NEVER-ENDING STORY TAKES A NEW TWIST

David Brockschmidt

This time it is Timothy Ryback writing for the
Wall Street Journal in the July 7th 2004 issue titled
‘Forensic Evidence Of the Holocaust Must Be Preserved’. Well, Tim,
this is what the historical revisionist scholars and historians have
been saying for the last 60 years while the world, especially the
media, is happy with the “authentic evidence” of storytellers like
Elie Wiesel who was last liberated in three Nazi concentration camps
at once! Miracles do happen! From Wiesel to Wilkomirski. First you
tell us that the forensic evidence in Auschwitz I and II (Birkenau)
must be preserved, but then you say:

“… Polish administrators [for the Auschwitz
memorial site] have taken the bait. In response to revisionist
charges, they tested the gas chamber walls for residual traces of
cyanide gas but found none. Unlike the delousing chambers, whose walls
still show cyanide ‘staining’, the gas chambers betrayed no residual
traces of Zyklon B.”

Eureka! What a discovery Tim.

Revisionists had discovered this fact as far back
as 1988 and published it in the Leuchter Report, and, in 1992,
in the more detailed Rudolf Report. So the Poles have only
confirmed these two reports 16 and 12 years later.

But their scientific explanation for the lack of
any Zyklon B staining in the gas chambers is, in truth, scientific
nonsense, namely: the homicidal process was so murderously brief that
the cyanide never penetrated the interior surface”. Is that a joke,
Tim? If yes, it’s a sick one!

Similarly, Tim tells his readers “… it was found
that repeated post-war ‘cleaning’ had leached the last traces of
cyanide from the heaps of human hair, one of the most damning pieces
of Holocaust evidence.”

Was there a dandruff problem?

Why would the Poles and/or the soldiers ‘clean’
hair which is not on the people’s heads anymore? Hair which was shaved
off to prevent headlice infected with the typhoid disease causing an
epidemic throughout the camp.

And why are ‘ heaps’ of human hair, one might
expect to find in any concentration camp or GUlag regardless of whom
they were run by – Himmler, Kaganovich or Lord Kitchener – proof of
homicidal gassings?

Indeed, why are the watchtower-girded enclosures of
Nazi concentration camps proof of homicidal gassings? Did not Gulags
have watchtowers and fences too?

Most states in Australia during World War II
maintained such establishments with these features. They were called
internment camps.

Tim tells us in his “forensic dissertation that
some of the first experiments with poison gas were undertaken in a
converted air raid shelter refitted with air tight doors and special
ducts for homicidal purposes dynamited by the Nazis in the autumn of
1944, the gas chamber was re-constructed after the war.”

There are two problems here. This air raid shelter
doubled up as a mortuary of the adjacent Auschwitz I hospital complex.
It was never dynamited by anybody and according to the Pope of the
Holocaust history, Robert Jan van Pelt, this so-called gas chamber was
never a gas chamber, but turned into one by the Poles and Soviets
after World War II. It was to stand as a ‘symbol’ for the ‘real’ gas
chambers at Auschwitz II (Birkenau), a mile away where the Polish
authorities have not found any Zyklon B traces either.

While we are at it, Tim, let me inform you that
your one million plus dead figure of Auschwitz I and II, which were
“fed into these extermination plants, forced into subterranean
chambers and gassed” have been reduced by Fritjof Meyer to
approximately 356 000! But Meyer claims they were not gassed in the
underground morgues of Krematoria II and III in Birkenau, but
supposedly in two little farm houses outside the Birkenau
concentration camp. There is no mention of this in your / forensic’
evidence of the Holocaust article. Just an added contradiction and
obfuscation on the whole subject.

Before I forget, crematorium chimneys

anywhere do not belch smoke into the air. As a
matter of fact they hardly smoke at all.

I read at the end of your article that you are the
author of another ‘Holocaust story’ with the title: The Last
Survivor: Legacies of Dachau. I hope you have mentioned in this
book the homicidal gas chamber of Dachau Concentration Camp, and the
sign on the front of it put up by the Dachau authorities saying in
four languages: German, French, English and Russian “ This is a
homicidal gas chamber built by the Nazis but it was never used.

As a footnote: A story recently reported in the UK
media about by Michael Howard, Jewish leader of the British
Conservative Party, telling the world that his aunty was sent into the
Auschwitz gas chamber and survived, at one time, as Michael Howard
says, because the Germans actually ran out of gas. So much for German
efficiency! It would even make Eli Wiesel blush.

In Bergen Belsen concentration camp ‘Holocaust
survivor’ Moshe Peer runs around as a placard man telling the tourists
he was gassed here five times as a child. When asked by visitors why
he survived, he replied: “Zyklon B gas does not affect children as bad
as adults”. All historians agree that the Nazis never built or
operated homicidal gas chambers at Bergen Belsen.

I am lost for words and herewith I rest my case. I
wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and to you Timmy,
Shanah Tova.

David Brockschmidt – Adelaide

Another changing story: Nazis planned to rebuild Auschwitz

Sunday, October 10,
2004

BERLIN -- Nazi officials planned to move the
Auschwitz gas chambers to a concentration camp in Austria as the Germans
retreated westward from the Soviet army near the end of World War II, a
magazine reported Sunday.

While SS chief Heinrich Himmler gave orders to raze
the gas chambers and crematoriums at Auschwitz in the fall of 1944 to
erase evidence of the Nazis' crimes, new historical research shows that
officials sent at least some of the equipment to the Mauthausen camp for
reuse, the Der Spiegel weekly said. Austrian historians Bertrand
Perz and Florian Freund drew their conclusions in part from
correspondence and accounts by survivors of both camps, the report said.

They also discovered a Feb. 10, 1945, letter to
Mauthausen officials from J.A. Topf and Sons, an Erfurt, Germany-based
company that made many of the incinerators for Nazi camps, that talked
about sharply expanding the Austrian camp's gas chamber on the
assumption that "all the parts from the Auschwitz Concentration Camp
will be used again." Though accounts by camp survivors have indicated
that some equipment from Auschwitz, located in present-day
Poland, arrived, the war's turn against Germany prevented the Nazis from
building the large-scale gas chambers they apparently envisioned for
Mauthausen, Der Spiegel said.

Six million Jews were killed in the Nazi Holocaust.
Between 1 million and 1.5 million prisoners - most of them Jews -
perished in gas chambers or died of starvation and disease at Auschwitz.
Advancing Soviet troops liberated the camp Jan. 27, 1945.

Mauthausen was liberated by U.S. troops in May 1945
when the Nazis surrendered. An estimated 100,000 inmates died at the
camp near the Austrian city of Linz